Fountain, Marcel Duchamp, 1917
Art exists as a gift, bringing meaning into our lives through the subconscious act of creativity and conversation. Bold statements often receive bolder reactions and it is the intention of the artist, or not - to create works that mystify the viewer. Marcel Duchamp was an artist and a man that enjoyed sparking conversation, bringing controversy and change to centre stage. Duchamp was considered to be a humourist, known to be notorious for creating talk throughout the art world due to his perspective shifts that lead to completely new ways of thinking and creating. It is said that he had a hand in transitioning the modern art movement to what we now call contemporary art. He did this through his direct postmodern mentality, avantgarde dichotomy approach, his spiritic actions and the way he went about his creative process -- revealing aspects of his subconscious through his otherworldly methodology to his practice. Duchamp, trained in the fine arts, partook in moments of Cubist and Dadaist energetic currencies, until he decided it was time to walk away from the imposed mindsets to embark on a path that was completely new and uncharted. The creation and submission of Marcel Duchamp’s, 1917, Fountain readymade created such stir, that it is still seen as one of the most revolutionary moments in art history to this day.
This satiric artistic expression, of a sculpture like entity – a manipulated readymade object stands alone in time and space. “The Duchampian readymade offered artists a second, far less readily identifiable legacy, in which the lessons to be learned was not the irrelevance of beauty, but rather its ubiquity.” (Fountains of Beauty) It is through my personal opinion that I believe that this obscure ontological readymade, comes from a thought process that carries a very postmodern perspective. Irony following this object’s submission was that it was the first of its kind. Creating perspective shifts for not only artist and critics but for the viewer as a collective. The fact that it was beautiful or not was not in question, it was more of a why was beauty not of the artist’s intention. Why make things that already serve a purpose, into things that serve no purpose at all? Quite an odd and thought-provoking piece all in one. What and why?
The paradox that surrounds the Fountain, rests under the notion that the original submission was overlooked, dismissed -- by the assigned committee organizing a show in New York City of April 1917, then to eventually vanish after the only photograph of its unprecedented existence was taken by photographer, Alfred Stieglitz. Duchamp signing the upside-down urinal under the alias, R. Mutt, exhibits a mysterious intention behind the piece from the beginning. Duchamp at this point, had already gone through much of his young adult life in Paris, decided to run away from the European influence to find himself in America, New York City a place where anyone could be anything, and anything could be something. The rejection the Fountain received triggered Marcel and initiated an effort in him to be heard and acknowledged for his inventiveness, through any means necessary. Duchamp had come into refusal once before in Paris after submitting his infamous, Nude Descending Staircase – surprisingly creating a similar volatile reaction from critics as well as onlookers. The painting evoked such a fuss, that Duchamp had removed it all together from the exhibit aggravated with the narrowminded mindset society in the early 20th century had configured itself around. Familiar with the feeling of being misunderstood, Duchamp leaped into the uncertainty and began his trip into a world of art that was uncharted and completely up for debate – the ready-mades.
In my eyes, Duchamp was a man that desired to continue to evolve, change, move and create things that seemed to challenge the structures imposed on the creative person. The Fountain is a representation of everything that rejects conventionality of even the modernist ways. “He tried to depersonalize his art, going so far as to select objects with no relationship to his personal subjectivity. Most importantly, Duchamp refused to repeat himself and would intentionally produce works radically different in medium, image and method, so as to prevent any tendency he might have to “fix” his identity as an artist.” (Hagman P. 78) Leaping from the postmodern into a field of contemporary conversations of philosophical outlooks that encouraged one to break the mold on anything that ties you to a set aesthetic or belief system.
In the context of aesthetic, there wasn’t a specific declaration made on that which was aesthetically pleasing or the beautiful specifically. But perhaps a subconscious statement behind the narrow mindsets and metaphorical “boxes”, critics and academics alike confined artists too. The impulse behind the submission, in my opinion was a challenge on how the critics should begin to look at art from a more thought-provoking critical perspective, not just an aesthetic one. Aesthetic will naturally come into play and be an essential piece of the dialogue. Without a doubt the modern art movement in the early 20th century was a beginning in such conversations that tipped the scales of what was deemed beautiful and art. Artist such as Picasso and Matisse challenged the norm in painting, styles such as impressionism and cubism – even collage had all become integrated into pieces – but never something out of a sanitary facility would ever be considered “art”. Overall, a core fundamental purpose behind the Fountain, I believe, was to engage the viewer in a way that had yet been presented to the world stage.
Within most of the text and literature I have resourced, the question that is often raised is why such an ironic sense of ambiguity. “He stressed the central importance of ideas in art, and cultivated an approach that stressed language and ambiguity, forcing his viewers to think and struggle with the “meaning” behind the work. At the same time, he would intentionally avoid fixed meanings and he loved to undermine expectations and create unanswerable questions and dilemmas.” (Marcel Duchamp’s beauty of indifference. P 73) The creation and submission of an object that, before that moment – was never contemplated to be “art” or credible enough to be considered. A lot of focus and arguments raised on the Fountain, touch upon the stigma perceived notion behind what some consider to be an attack on aesthetic, a Neo-Dada iconoclasm statement. This secretive submission generated a thought provoking “why”, for not only the critics and artist alike, but for the art world and general public all together. When doing further research and learning about Marcel himself, it is very clear to me why the Fountain was created and where it came from deep within his psyche.
There is this satirical humour behind the fact that the only existing remnants of the Fountain are all replicas of the original. Ironic how an object that was in critics eyes so appalling and aesthetical unappealing, “not art” became one of the most treasured and reproduced replicas in the art world today. There is a notion that rests here that perhaps in the present moment – critics and the stigmatized historical influence are too engrained in what we are told is right, that we do not critically take the initiative to think ahead to what could be. That out of box thinking was not highly encouraged in the early 20th century and left many artists discouraged and forced to adhere along to what the academia claimed to be art or in fact good art.
What aspect and or characteristics really shaped the buzz around Duchamp’s Fountain? Was it the act itself, an attack on art and aesthetic? Or was it the idea of the object demanding to be identified as art because the artist said it was? Much of the literature will suggest and focus on how there is an exploitation essence behind the submission. Affirming that the biased viewpoint on what art is should not come from a “committee” but from the artist itself. Why is it believed that the avant-garde considered beauty to be so problematic? Was it because it didn’t need a definite position? “If Duchamp was just indifferent to art he would not have created it (and in fact for 20 years he appeared to do just that) but in the end Duchamp was enthralled by art and attempted to cultivate an aesthetics of living that was pervasive. But his longing for art was expressed through absence – through that beauty of unrequited anticipation.” P 82 (The Artist’s Mind: A Psychoanalytic on Creativity, Modern Art and Modern Artists) Duchamp made a point in life when working on a creative piece or process to take the element, or materiality of the subject matter and push it to the furthest it can stretch.
In an Editorial written by Graeme Sullivan, Duchamp, Dewey, and a Fountain of Knowledge, Studies in Art Education, there is this sense of understanding on a broader level of what the Fountain truly represents in a larger frame of context. “The Fountain was drafted into service for socio-political purposes, conceptual reasons, and as an emblem of institutional theory in the hands of Dickie.” (Sullivan, 291) There was a shared sense of knowledge that was highlighted, giving scope on how new-age theorists and educators responded to the urinal within a less “aesthetic” dominant context. In, Fountains of Beauty (Duchamp’s other Lesson), by Roger Rothman a point is raised that really caught my attention. “Severed from its connection with the beautiful, art is for the first time capable of functioning as a tool of social change.” (Rothman, 70) Here we are being shown that there are moments when literary scholars, and philosophers see through the ambiguity of the object.
Post modernity raised a lot of questions that challenged the notion of what is and what can be. There is quite a satirical energy that comes through on a metaphorical level with the object, Fountain. Here the viewer is asked to think about why – this rotated porcelain urinal – is what they must take in. An evaluation of belief systems begins to set in. And of course, the artist is always right attitude.
